I saved your post for a special reply,
BTCreward. If you don't want to read it, then here's the TLDR: you have no clue what you are talking about and if you continue to make accusations they will come back to bite you, so you should probably leave this thread now.
You make a lot of rules to try to prevent alt accounts from participating but you have not succeeded.
It is not difficult to use multiple accounts in your campaign, it is just a headache to do so.
That's the point. If the headache isn't worth the payment, the cheaters find greener pastures.
Maybe if you judged participants by the quality of their posts instead of the number of accounts they had you would have better luck with your campaign.
I don't have to - the two indicators are closely correlated. Higher-quality posters are less likely to be using alts, and vice versa.
Regardless of the number of accounts a participant has if they are making relevant posts you are getting advertisement exposure.
And the more accounts a person has, the more they have to spam the forum and the lower-quality their posts become, the less-read their signature becomes, and the less exposure I get from their signature(s).
I would not say that someone who has more then one account is a scumbag nor a thief. I would consider you to be more of a thief by forcing participants to risk their money by gambling on your site any time they want to even apply to participate in your campaign.
Having two accounts doesn't make you a scumbag; using them to double-dip signature campaigns does. An analogy: XYZ widget corp wants ten individuals to do network marketing and tell people about the company personally. One person signs up under two pseudonyms and gets a double share the budget, even though he isn't capable of generating double the interest. He is also doing the same thing for XYZ's direct competitor, PDQ widgets, and collecting payment from both of them. While he is advertising both companies per his agreements, he is not generating the desired exposure because his advertising is less effective and is also conflicted - users exposed to him may choose XYZ, and they may choose PDQ; they may not know there is a difference, or think a PDQ product is produced by XYZ. He is stealing from both PDQ and XYZ, and damaging the bottom lines of both companies as well as any other company that chooses to use the same marketing technique and the entire marketing ecosystem as a whole; he is indirectly disparaging Johnny's Shoeshine because Johnny uses the same marketing technique, and potential customers hear about cheaters abusing the technique and assume Johnny must be a scammer because he uses it too.
I require each applicant to play a single game. This serves three purposes,
none of which is stealing. The first is to verify address ownership and "lock in" the receipt address for an applicant. The second is to provide priority incentive to regular players. The third is to ensure our advertisers know what they are advertising and like it; if they don't, they shouldn't be advertising us. That requirement costs 0.001
BTC and is not a hidden fee. If you consider this theft then you obviously have never been seriously stolen from.
If an applicant won't play our game, I won't pay them to advertise it.Now that you've accused me of being a thief and a scumbag, the gloves come off. You have exactly one warning. If you continue to disparage me, Lucky Bit, or this thread, I will be forced to take action including and not limited to reporting you to the staff and leaving you negative trust. I'm incredibly forgiving about unacceptable behavior up to a point and you have now reached that point.
I don't know what the house edge is on luckybit, nor do I care
Meaning, you don't give two tin shits about Lucky Bit or this campaign - you didn't even bother to spend 4 seconds on the site and find out the house edge and game rules. Why waste your time here?
but assuming it is 1% then the EV for people that apply is negative by 1%. This does not even count the fact that the gambler is forced to pay 2 TX fees on every bet which really makes the house edge much higher then advertised.
Assuming the player bets the minimum allowed and gets the worst possible results, the total loss before application is 0.001
BTC.
Do your homework before you sling accusations. Considering how much this campaign pays, asking our advertisers to actually play the game they are advertising isn't such a high bar. Most of our advertisers already play anyway; to them, this cost is zero!
If you want to talk about spam, I would suggest that you look at the spam your site puts on the blockchain as in the number of spammy transactions.
This point is in contention and is not accepted as truth by the majority. If it were, luke-jr would have his fork upstream. He doesn't; therefore, I assert that offchain gambling is no more spam than blockchain tag advertising - less so, in fact since it conducts business and transfers value, while tag spam does not. Also, our games are wicked earners for miners so they actually contribute positively to the network. I won't further this argument as it is already being discussed elsewhere on this forum.
Why would people in the bitmixer campaign be visiting your scammy signature campaign thread?
Well they certainly visit a lot more than the people in the 777coin campaign. So, why are you here? Just causing trouble? (Before you answer, I'd like to remind you that the gloves came off three paragraphs ago. My final point of civil advice to you is to leave this thread alone.)
